From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Aug 29 18:19:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from cage.simianscience.com (cage.simianscience.com [64.7.134.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEF137B43C for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chimp (chimp [192.168.0.2]) by cage.simianscience.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e7U1JpV01307; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:19:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000829210929.033cfeb8@mail.sentex.net> X-Sender: mdtancsa@mail.sentex.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:14:11 -0400 To: David Raistrick , stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: Most stable stable? (or..why use -R?) And...keeping ports uptodate? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 08:53 PM 8/29/2000 -0400, David Raistrick wrote: >So, Which stable is the the most stable? I realyl dont wish to /remain/ >stable (except for ports, perhaps..) as I dont have the time or drivespace >to deal with remaking worlds. So which day's release has the least >bugs?:) In theory today's snapshot is more stable that yesterday's snapshot. In reality, the practice tends to be fairly close to the theory. I am not trying to be a smart ass, but the aim of STABLE is to be stable. To determine whats best for your situation, you should track the STABLE mailing list as well as the CVS commit logs and watch for the odd human error that happens and what is being committed. ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Network Administration, mike@sentex.net Sentex Communications www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message